Not necessarily.When you have a de-facto monopoly, as we do now with Adobe Photoshop, it benefits no-one other than the monopolist. It stifles competition, can stifle innovation and good products (companies) are often bought in their infancy rather than be allowed to flourish and thereby pose a (financial) threat.

Think RAW Shooter, NIK software etc. I know Jeff Schewe claimed in another post that Adobe bought RAWShooter to acquire one of their engineers, (that didn't work out) but nevertheless they did buy the then 'leader of the pack' and, if I remember correctly, Adobe at the time were not exactly even on the map when it came to RAW converters. Lightroom 1 was a 'freebie' to all RAW Shooter licencees.

But until we all understand that a lack of alternatives is detrimental to our long term health AND are prepared to back fledgling companies by actually supporting (buying) their products, then you're putting your head in the guillotine and praying ...

It's BAD business practice to be engaged in any 'negotiation' without an alternative. Pure and simple.

I guess you need to ask these other companies like Corel why we have a monopoly situation when 10 years ago they could have been competition but fumbled the ball miserably. And now you want to give them your money after Adobe spent 10's of millions of dollars investing in PS and other products and moved image processing forwards while others sat still. I know who I'd rather repay...the ones that brought us here, not the ones that bailed on us long ago.

And now you want to give them your money after Adobe spent 10's of millions of dollars investing in PS and other products and moved image processing forwards while others sat still. I know who I'd rather repay...the ones that brought us here, not the ones that bailed on us long ago.

Not at all what I said, added to which your two posts seemingly contradict each other.

Let's not digress, yet again, into another Adobe CC discourse. It's all been said many times over in this forum. This is about alternatives - for photographers. Interesting that you're the only poster who raises 'Corel', so far, as a reason NOT to look for alternatives.

Care to be proactive instead of naive ? Today, most of us have a copy of CS6 (either suite or PS) plus Lightroom 4 or 5, on 'perpetual'.

(A) Continue on CS6 plus Lr perpetual and take your chances.(B) The $9.99 long term PS-LR CC pricing offer (giving Adobe the 'benefit-of-the-doubt') is probably in our interest to at least consider. It's $120 a year. Give Adobe a year or two (to protect our asses) and see how thing develop. If we don't subscribe we're committed to alternatives or, should we change our minds later, an annual subscription of $240 instead. You can do the maths. $120 is insurance.

Neither of the above options negate the fact that it remains in OUR best interests that there should be viable alternatives. Now, if it's ok with you can we go back to sharing our 'notes' ?

Anyone remember LivePicture or know what happened to it? It was around in the mid late 90's. I became fairly profficient with it and then it dropped off the radar.

It had some interesting features. All effects were layer based and brushed in. It was non destructive in that once all the edits were made you output or built to a new file. The edits were saved as a project. Quite a thing back then.

Personally I am happy with CC but think it is valuable to explore and support alternatives. It would be great if we could do that without having to take sides in the CC debate on this thread at least.

Anyone remember LivePicture or know what happened to it? It was around in the mid late 90's. I became fairly profficient with it and then it dropped off the radar.

It had some interesting features. All effects were layer based and brushed in. It was non destructive in that once all the edits were made you output or built to a new file. The edits were saved as a project. Quite a thing back then.

I think Jeff Schewe mentioned that he used to use it in one of the earlier threads about PS alternatives and was thinking about dusting off a copy to see how it compared these days.

That is of course a valid point, perpetual licenses from dead companies are useless.

But so are subscription licenses.

Assuming that the strategists at Adobe came up with the subscription model to increase revenue under the pressure of stakeholders, I wonder what happens if ever CC ends up decreasing revenue?

If perpetual's income stream was not sufficient for Adobe to keep investing in CS software, then why should we think that Adobe will keep investing in the, arguably, more expensive to run CC framework if it ends up generating less cash?

Why could CC generate less revenue? Because of all those creative individuals and small companies refusing to sign a white check to Adobe, not because they cannot afford 30 US$ per month, but because of the principle. Because they don't want to support a model that they are starting to understand will continue to increase dependance and further reduce freedom.

I understand that this is not a fight you are interested in fighting, but it is a very deep societal shift that many people find not to be in their interest. This is really not just about a 2 fold increase of the price of a great piece of software.

If perpetual's income stream was not sufficient for Adobe to keep investing in CS software, then why should we think that Adobe will keep investing in the, arguably, more expensive to run CC framework if it ends up generating less cash?

That's a big IF. It is possible that perceptual income stream was sufficient, but a subscription income stream would be greater no? What company would not move to this newer model if they thought it would increase their income? Wouldn't your company do so? I would.

Quote

I understand that this is not a fight you are interested in fighting, but it is a very deep societal shift that many people find not to be in their interest. This is really not just about a 2 fold increase of the price of a great piece of software.

The bottom line is, this is a cost to benefit proposition for all Adobe customers. If enough bail, it will hurt Adobe. But many of us will accept the new model just as we accept increases in prices for other products and services. We don't like the increase in fees but we recognize this is a fact of life. We sometimes pass these fees onto our own customers. This is capitalism in progress.

With the current offer on the table to have full access to the most up to date versions of both Photoshop and LR, the critical, state of the art software for any professional photographer, for $10 per month, it seems to me that anyone working as a professional who balks at the price ought to be in a different business(or not be in business at all). If it's over the "principle" of rental v. perpetual licenses, well, I can't imagine anyone running a photography business on a rational basis who would choose to make a stand over $120 per year by dropping PS in favor of some hobby-like alternative that may disappear in the blink of an eye. This is not about $10,000 or even $500 per year. $120!!!!

That's a big IF. It is possible that perceptual income stream was sufficient, but a subscription income stream would be greater no? What company would not move to this newer model if they thought it would increase their income? Wouldn't your company do so? I would. The bottom line is, this is a cost to benefit proposition for all Adobe customers. If enough bail, it will hurt Adobe. But many of us will accept the new model just as we accept increases in prices for other products and services. We don't like the increase in fees but we recognize this is a fact of life. We sometimes pass these fees onto our own customers. This is capitalism in progress.

Yep and look where that got the world economy! Seriously though, if your argument is that "this is the way the world is going, so we should just all tag along" that's kind of lame. Consumers have every right to object and also to speak out freely when large corporations try to act in a way which is anti-competitive. From reading this forum and many others I would say that the overwhelming majority of photographers are against Adobe's CC model. Put simply, it is Adobe that should be made to re-think their policies and fall in line with customer expectations and not the other way. He who pays the piper...

That is of course a valid point, perpetual licenses from dead companies are useless.

Not quite. Perpetual licenses of "dead" software have gotten me through some vexing file migration and work productivity issues on more than one occasion. It's not just about companies going belly up. It's about companies abandoning software while failing to give customers appropriate migration tools and time frame. For example, Adobe bought Aldus Pagemaker, then canned it when Adobe Management decided to move all those Pagemaker customers over to Indesign. But the Adobe-supplied migration software to migrate Pagemaker files to Indesign files was half-baked, so having a perpetual license on Pagemaker running on a personally archived hardware/software platform for a few years longer than what Adobe thought was "reasonable" bought me more time to deal with the manual editing/migration problems associated with my obsolete Pagemaker files. Similarly, I kept using a functional copy of Live Picture well past the point where it had "died" at the hands of bad corporate management decisions. Why? Because it took a few more years past that point before the computer hardware I could afford to purchase could actually handle my big high-res scans in PS that had always been effortless in Live Picture. PS and my computer hardware did eventually catch up and overtake Live Picture in terms of ease of use and ability to handle large files, but there was a three year transition/migration window where my obsolete perpetual license for Live Picture 2.6 was still kicking PS butt before I finally made the total transition to PS.

The real cautionary tale in all of this new rush to the "cloud"/subscription software paradigm is that companies expect customers to move to the next greatest thing faster than many of us can always achieve, and in that quest they don't always provide good backwards compatibility for migrating legacy files. Perpetual licenses combined with "archived" hardware and software as part of my digital file migration strategy has bought me time I needed to make those painful transitions occur more on my time schedule and not on some imposed corporate time schedule. It's not just about dead software or dead companies.

Another example: All those guys with huge project inventories on Final Cut Pro 7 being told that Final Cut Pro X was much better, but oops, Apple screwed the pooch with backwards compatibility and discarded functionality in the first version, so many customers got left high and dry with huge archives of Final Cut 7 projects that couldn't be easily ported to Final Cut Pro X. Don't get me wrong. I think Final Cut Pro X is fantastic, but I didn't have any legacy issues with Final Cut Pro 7. Many pros did. What's to say Adobe does something like that with Premier or some other app in the near future... Well, many of us will need to navigate those waters carefully with software that we can still keep running on our systems well after the corporate types have told us to "get over it". That's my concern about Adobe's current subscription model. I Know migration of digital assets is inevitable, but perpectual licenses have eased that pain. I'm not sure I trust Adobe yet for me to entrust Adobe with all future file migration issues. Forced File migration will continue to happen. We can all count on it. Adobe needs to add an option that let's us buy out our last version if and when we quit subscribing. It might indeed have to be a rather hefty cancelation fee option for Adobe management to believe it keeps the subscription plan more favorable, but without such a file migration safety net, I will continue to have real concerns about Adobe CC.

That is of course a valid point, perpetual licenses from dead companies are useless.

Not necessarily, only if they use some sort of authentication routine that's no longer available they cease to be of use.

I bought a licence to use a wonderful bit of label making software(Visual labels) many years ago (copyright 1997). The company making it has long gone, but it was well written and still very useful. The same can be said of my web authoring software Homesite I still use version 4.5 (1997) and it still works fine.Old software from companies no longer with us can still work well and be productive.

Reuters NewsWire reporting that the highly respected and influential luminary, Michael Reichmann, has issued a thinly veiled recommendation to all members and viewers of his renowned Luminous Landscape Forum, that they will benefit by safeguarding their perpetual licences and implies that a wholesale migration to Windows will guard against obsolescence and alleviate the risks and restrictions that Adobe (ADBE) has recently imposed on its client base.

Tim Cook was not immediately available for comment. Bill Gates though did reiterate his view that his Apple iPhone 4S was more than sufficient particularly when combined with Google's NIK software and described Adobe's moves as 'puzzling'.

One notable absentee, was Jeff Schewe, an early proponent of the Adobe subscription model. Reuters understands that this is because Mr Schewe has revised his views, as result of a recent trip to Italy, and taken out a lifelong subscription to 'La Dolce Vita' describing his decision as the only real and practical step towards increased productivity.

Officials at the NASDAQ are examining the situation for any signs of abnormal stock price activity whilst reliable sources at the NSA have confirmed that they are monitoring the site closely for signs of terrorist activity, due to the recent abnormally high incidence of 'thread hijacking' .

STOP PRESSOne notable absentee, was Jeff Schewe, an early proponent of the Adobe subscription model. Reuters understands that this is because Mr Schewe has revised his views, as result of a recent trip to Italy, and taken out a lifelong subscription to 'La Dolce Vita' describing his decision as the only real and practical step towards increased productivity.

Not quite. Perpetual licenses of "dead" software have gotten me through some vexing file migration and work productivity issues on more than one occasion. It's not just about companies going belly up. It's about companies abandoning software while failing to give customers appropriate migration tools and time frame. For example, Adobe bought Aldus Pagemaker, then canned it when Adobe Management decided to move all those Pagemaker customers over to Indesign. But the Adobe-supplied migration software to migrate Pagemaker files to Indesign files was half-baked, so having a perpetual license on Pagemaker running on a personally archived hardware/software platform for a few years longer than what Adobe thought was "reasonable" bought me more time to deal with the manual editing/migration problems associated with my obsolete Pagemaker files. Similarly, I kept using a functional copy of Live Picture well past the point where it had "died" at the hands of bad corporate management decisions. Why? Because it took a few more years past that point before the computer hardware I could afford to purchase could actually handle my big high-res scans in PS that had always been effortless in Live Picture. PS and my computer hardware did eventually catch up and overtake Live Picture in terms of ease of use and ability to handle large files, but there was a three year transition/migration window where my obsolete perpetual license for Live Picture 2.6 was still kicking PS butt before I finally made the total transition to PS.

This is the reality of computing and why subscription may cause enormous problems for some. But as you do not have to upgrade a product that may alleviate the problem. But what may be vital is the ability to roll back to a previous version if issues are later discovered - I doubt people keep all the installers for CC components lying around once used particularly if using a laptop with a small SSD and problems are always immediately apparent.

As others have said, I will continue to use CS6 until my hardware/OS outstrips it but I am also going to support PhotoLine, the next best alternative as far as I can see.

PhotoLine seems to be a fairly small concern, our support will make a difference and the cost is more than reasonable. I for one would like to build up my familiarity with this superb little program for other reasons too.

One thing I really like is that PhotoLine is so efficiently coded that it can live on a USB stick and work on any computer I plug it into. Just think about that for a moment and tell me that does not have useful implications.

Although I am still wrestling with a change of methods, just like I did all those years ago when changing from PSP to PS5, I am finding lots of things that PhotoLine does better than PS CS6 such as the way it handles layers and masks. Multiple masks on a layer without clumsy workarounds, RGB and LAB layers in the same document and 8, 16 and 32 bit layers too for just a few examples.